Suchergebnisse

During the last few decades, a new state with a decentralized unitary structure was implemented and it destroyed so far functioning dichotomy between unitary states and complex states called very often as federal. Consequently, there is a huge controversy in the classification of the political system of countries like Spain or Italy. The article contains of a brief reference to the form of federal and unitary, which constitutes the background to the debate on the Spanish regime. Currently, 17 Spanish regions has a strong, stable political system and a political position, which does not mean the end of the decentralization process. The shape of the modern territorial structure of the Spanish State is based on several principles that are important from the point of view of the classification of the political system, the analysis included in the article. Spain based on the constitutional principle of unity, created a new form of the state, which in this case can be called a regional system of unitary decentralized. In conclusion it is not possible to call Spanish regime as federal.

Transformations of forms of state political systems go beyond the established division of states into unitary and federal because it does not fully reflect the complexity of issues related to decentralizing reforms. According to the authors, there exist major differences regarding the classification of states at regional and local level, which do not fall into the fixed diversification between a unitary and federal state. The article proposes an extended classification of the recognized political systems, broadened by a regional and local level, which allows us to distinguish a sub-central system. The authors argue that the main criterion of topology is the relations (competences) between the central (state) government and regional and local governments. The observable vertical distribution of power relates to three levels: local self-government, territorial autonomy and subdividions of a federal state. They are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement one another.

The systemic diversity of the regions and local units can be subsumed to three possible forms of political systems: 1) self‑government, 2) territorial autonomy and 3) the federal state. Based upon that criterion, modern democratic states can be divided into: 1) unitary states with self‑government, 2) unitary states with territorial autonomy and self‑government, 3) federal states with self‑government, 4) federal states with territorial autonomy and self‑government. That division clearly points to the fact, that unitary and federal states can successfully exhibit the same types of political systems on the regional and local levels: territorial autonomy and self‑government. In consequence, both federal and unitary states, under this particular respect, do not exhibit differences. The systems present in the unit‑parts of a federation (regardless of their designation: republics, states, lands, cantons or provinces) in themselves are not a separate category and form of the political system, but form together with others, the three subcentral legal‑political systems present in democratic states. However, the understanding of federalism as concept referring to something more than the legal‑political system of a given state (or even the political system sensu stricto) might seems unconvincing, but still in the consideration of federalism one needs to step away from the analysis of existing federal states (however, comparative constitutional law and constitutional practice must have fundamental impact) and create the prognoses of systemic solutions in a group of highly decentralized unitary states. Besides that, the research of the political theory of federalism and federation presents itself as not without merit to the undertaken task.

Considerations on political systems on a regional and local level are tightly connected with decentralization processes of political systems. Contemporary state structures have become dysfunctional in many cases in relation to developmental challenges of societies. After the period of excessive centralization, finished with a deep crisis, strong and deep decentralization processes, the result of which was giving a harmonious power division back happened several dozen years ago. A well‑known division of political systems according to system (constitutional) criteria that was formed years ago and took into account above all the relationship between a legislative power, the government and the head of state, that is, between the legislative and the executive level can be extended by a classification of political systems on a regional and local level nowadays. The main criterion of typology can be the relations (competence scope) between central (general) and regional as well as local authorities. The proposed division of system forms of democratic countries would be the following: 1. Unitary countries with a self‑government system, 2. Unitary countries with a territory autonomy and self‑government, 3. Federal countries with a self‑government system, and 4. Federal countries with a territory autonomy and self‑government.